@DruStarThat's a very good clarification that should be made,...

@DruStar

That's a very good clarification that should be made, and you are indeed correct. So thank you for bringing that up, as it may not be apparent to many not familiar with biotechs... but in the same vein, it should be apparent that we are not comparing apples with apples at this stage, so what I term as a 'response rate' is not what the full dose phase 2 trials were for Juno and Kite. I'd say we can only really do an apples/apples comparison in our cohort 3 or cohort 4 patients where our dosages will be around where our phase 2 trial will be.

Thanks again for raising that as when re-read what I wrote, the way I wrote it did appear to to suggest our early response rate was a direct measure against the approved products, but as you say what I failed to mention is this distinction in definition you outlined above.

But it would also be fair to mention the other obvious point that our low dose may end up only being a 1/5th or 1/10th of our full dose... so you'd expect that the response will improve as our dosage increases. So the intention was to use our response rate of 75% as a proxy/gauge of what type of ORR we would be able to achieve if we used a full dose... but one thing is for sure, you need a response (stable disease) before you have any chance of achieving a partial or complete response.